The other day Variety listed some actresses up for "the femme lead" in Superman, and specifically stated it wasn't Lois Lane.
It sounded suspiciously like a boneheaded idea of trying a romance story with Superman and some other woman.
This caused some angst for people who went "Wait.. That can't be right. What female character would be BIGGER than Lois Lane in this? Is she even gonna be IN it?" The only idea that made sense to me was that it might be a villainess (or they made a mistake, and it was just a female lead but not The Female Lead).
I'm gonna go ahead and do my "I was right" dance now at the newest rumors. Not only is it a villainess, but revealing the identity of the villainess these 3 actresses are up for seems to contradict some of the statements Snyder has said about the film. (Yeah, this is as big a rumor too but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than letting Lana fricking Lang lead a Superman movie.)
And the one who leaked it also went out of their way to say "Lois Lane will be in the film."
Does anyone else think this got into Variety, too many people went "NOOO" and they suddenly went "Oh shit, we gotta correct this one... but with some deniability so we won't spoil it"?
Lois is the love interest and the love interest is always the most replaceable character in a superhero story. Just because they need a love interest doesn't mean they have to keep using Lois. Have him go out with a spunky Star Labs scientist. One more thing, the third post on the Peter Bishop subject is me. For some strange reason I couldn't get the name url thingamabob to work the first time.
ReplyDeleteLois is considerably more than your average Superhero love interest. For one, she's the only one. Ever. Barring Smallville at least. I mean Lana and Lori happened, but they were always past-tense. But for Superman, it's been Lois from the first comic, through every television show, through the movies, until now.
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason every Superman product (that's supposed to be present day Superman) starts off with Clark's first day at the Daily Planet. Because that day, meeting Lois, that's where his story starts.
Anthony -- Don't worry about it, the comment stuff on Google is odd at times.
ReplyDeleteThe love interest is replaceable in Batman, and Sherlock Holmes, and Captain America where they don't have a set love interest that has been with the character in EVERY incarnation.
Would you replace Guinevere? For that matter, would you replace Romeo or Juliet? Because the names go together like any two romance heroes. In songs, in sitcoms, in jokes she comes up all the time with him. Her name is inextricably associated with his. She is the most well-known female character in comics, yes above Wonder Woman because half the people who name Diana can't describe her nearly as well as "Reporter for the Daily Planet who's dating Superman." Try it.
The whole secret identity fantasy, where Superman is the real man behind a nerdy exterior that the girl doesn't see? The girl's Lois. It's as much a part of the core concept as Watson is to Holmes and while yeah, you can have it, it's not going to be the same at ALL.
I wouldn't replace Juliet because she is sharing the billing with Romeo. She is the main character who happens to be in love with the other main character so I never saw her as just a love interest.
ReplyDeleteYou have me dead to rights on Guinevere. In my defense I would just like to say that every conversation I ever heard about King Arthur goes like this "there is this dude named Arthur who becomes king and now that I have gotten that out of the way lets talk about everyone but him" :)
I just get the feeling that people put up with Arthur just to get to the good stuff.
No one outshines Superman, but EVERYONE outshines Arthur. Can you be still be the main character when you are the least interesting member of the cast? Guinevere isn't so much a love interest as she is a breakout character on a hit ensemble show. Yes, I know how stupid that sounds...
Anthony -- As long as we're on the same page on how dumb that sounds about Guinevere. (If anyone's a breakout character, it's Lancelot who has taken over the whole franchise. Like an old French Wolverine.)
ReplyDeleteStill, you really think billing is all there is to a franchise? If you do, we're not going to get anywhere in this discussion.
My point, and a number of other people's, is that we find the romantic aspect INHERENT to Superman's story. (Just as many people find the romantic aspect INHERENT to the Lancelot and King Arthur stories) And that means the love interest, Lois Lane and her specific traits, is also INHERENT to the story. You can't just remove Lois Lane and insert Character B and have it work because she is just as notable a character as he is. Hell, I bet if you went out and asked the proverbial 5 people on the street to describe the Superman franchise, they'd have an easier time describing the personality of Lois Lane than of the top billing character.
As a result, your argument that the easiest thing to change is a love interest goes nowhere with us. Because the nosy, pushy love interest that gets in trouble all the time is as important as flying and saving people's lives.
Doesn't Guinevere start sleeping with Lancelot? I don't think she counts as a staple love interest for this reason. All of the staple love interests are loyal when they're actually dating the heroes, aren't they?
ReplyDeleteI can't think of Superman without thinking of Lois Lane. His experiences on Earth are defined by his love for her. If they really are sick of Lois Lane, why not alter her character a tiny bit, try casting her differently? I would be interested to see a Lois Lane who differed TREMENDOUSLY from the one in the last movie. *shudder. I really didn't like that one. I hope this next one is spectacular, making up for the last one and still having some umph left over to stand on its own.